| Literature DB >> 24788543 |
Miguel Vicente López Soblechero1, Cristina González Gaya1, Juan José Hernández Ramírez2.
Abstract
The study discussed in this paper had two principal objectives. The first was to evaluate the distance model of official vocational education and training offered by means of a virtual learning platform. The second was to establish that both on-site classroom and online distance modes of vocational education and training can be seen as complementary in terms of responding to the majority of modern educational needs. We performed a comparative study using data and results gathered over the course of eleven academic years for 1,133 of our students enrolled in an official vocational education and training program, leading to the awarding of a certificate as an Administrative Management Expert. The classes were offered by the Alfonso de Avellaneda Vocational Education and Training School, located in the city of Alcalá de Henares near Madrid, Spain. We offered classes both in traditional classroom mode and through online distance learning. This paper begins with a descriptive analysis of the variables we studied; inferential statistical techniques are subsequently applied in order to study the relationships that help form the basis for the conclusions reached. This study's results provide evidence that a broad offering of vocational education and training opportunities will facilitate access to such learning for students who require it, regardless of their age, employment status, or personal circumstances, with the online distance mode playing a fundamental role while also yielding results equivalent to those observed for classroom instruction.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24788543 PMCID: PMC4006865 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096052
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Distribution of students by morning-early afternoon, late afternoon-evening or distance mode.
Figure 2Distribution of students by age grouping.
Figure 3Average grade awarded for morning-early afternoon, late afternoon-evening and distance mode with standard deviation.
Figure 4Average grades by age group.
Figure 5Number of students enrolled during each academic year.
COLLES survey summary table.
| Almost always (5) | Often (4) | Sometimes (3) | Seldom (2) | Almost Never (1) | Statistics | |||||||||
| Abs.Freq. | Rel.Freq. | Abs.Freq. | Rel.Freq. | Abs.Freq. | Rel.Freq. | Abs.Freq. | Rel.Freq. | Abs.Freq. | Rel.Freq. | Mean | Mode | Var. | ||
| Relevance | My learning focuses on issues that interest me | 52% | 22 | 48% | 20 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 4.5 | 5 | 0.3 |
| What I learn is important for my professional practice | 48% | 20 | 43% | 18 | 10% | 4 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 4.4 | 5 | 0.4 | |
| I learn how to improve my professional practice | 62% | 26 | 29% | 12 | 10% | 4 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 4.5 | 5 | 0.5 | |
| What I learn connects well with my professional practice | 43% | 18 | 43% | 18 | 10% | 4 | 5% | 2 | 0% | 0 | 4.2 | 4 | 0.7 | |
| Reflection | I think critically about how I learn | 19% | 8 | 48% | 20 | 24% | 10 | 10% | 4 | 0% | 0 | 3.8 | 4 | 0.8 |
| I think critically about my own ideas | 29% | 12 | 43% | 18 | 10% | 4 | 10% | 4 | 10% | 4 | 3.7 | 4 | 1.6 | |
| I think critically about other students’ ideas | 5% | 2 | 24% | 10 | 29% | 12 | 19% | 8 | 24% | 10 | 2.7 | 3 | 1.5 | |
| I think critically about ideas in the readings | 24% | 10 | 33% | 14 | 33% | 14 | 5% | 2 | 5% | 2 | 3.7 | 4 | 1.1 | |
| Interactivity | I explain my ideas to other students | 14% | 6 | 5% | 2 | 52% | 22 | 10% | 4 | 19% | 8 | 2.9 | 3 | 1.5 |
| I ask other students to explain their ideas | 14% | 6 | 10% | 4 | 48% | 20 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 3.0 | 3 | 1.3 | |
| Other students ask me to explain my ideas | 5% | 2 | 10% | 4 | 38% | 16 | 29% | 12 | 19% | 8 | 2.5 | 3 | 1.1 | |
| Other students respond to my ideas | 14% | 6 | 5% | 2 | 48% | 20 | 14% | 6 | 19% | 8 | 2.8 | 3 | 1.5 | |
| Tutor support | The tutor stimulates my thinking | 14% | 6 | 29% | 12 | 48% | 20 | 10% | 4 | 0% | 0 | 3.5 | 3 | 0.7 |
| The tutor encourages me to participate | 43% | 18 | 24% | 10 | 29% | 12 | 5% | 2 | 0% | 0 | 4.0 | 5 | 0.9 | |
| The tutor models good discourse | 38% | 16 | 14% | 6 | 38% | 16 | 5% | 2 | 5% | 2 | 3.8 | 3 | 1.4 | |
| The tutor models critical self-reflection | 24% | 10 | 29% | 12 | 33% | 14 | 10% | 4 | 5% | 2 | 3.6 | 3 | 1.2 | |
| Peer support | Other students encourage my participation | 14% | 6 | 24% | 10 | 24% | 10 | 29% | 12 | 10% | 4 | 3.0 | 2 | 2.0 |
| Other students praise my contribution | 5% | 2 | 5% | 2 | 38% | 16 | 33% | 14 | 19% | 8 | 2.4 | 3 | 1.0 | |
| Other students value my contribution | 10% | 4 | 5% | 2 | 43% | 18 | 19% | 8 | 24% | 10 | 2.6 | 3 | 1.4 | |
| Other students empathise with my struggle to learn | 5% | 2 | 14% | 6 | 33% | 14 | 24% | 10 | 24% | 10 | 2.5 | 3 | 1.3 | |
| Interpretation | I make good sense of other students’ messages | 43% | 18 | 33% | 14 | 24% | 10 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 4.2 | 5 | 0.6 |
| Other students make good sense of my messages | 33% | 14 | 33% | 14 | 33% | 14 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 4.0 | 5 | 0.7 | |
| I make good sense of the tutor’s messages | 62% | 26 | 19% | 8 | 19% | 8 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 4.4 | 5 | 0.6 | |
| The tutor makes good sense of my messages | 57% | 24 | 19% | 8 | 19% | 8 | 5% | 2 | 0% | 0 | 4.3 | 5 | 0.9 | |
Abs. Freq.: absolute frequency, Rel. Freq.: relative frequency, Var.: variance.